I have been invited to share my knowledge at an upcoming WordCamp in Africa.

Unfortunately I can’t afford the travel expenses, so I’m sending out this “message in a bottle” to see if any company out there is willing to sponsor me.

I need to expand on this, I guess.

Wonderful @yoast has established a #diversityfund and has graciously sponsored 2 of the 9 WordCamps I have spoken at this year.

Me has sponsored all the rest, investing close to 3000€ to date.

I am self employed and a sole provider. This means that I can only rely on myself to sustain my mortgage and my living costs. It also means that when I travel to speak at Camps I can’t work, so I am spending and not earning.

Obviously, no one is making me do this: I could stay home.

I do think (at least that’s some of the feedback I’ve received) my talks/workshops provide value to the attendees, especially when I take them to places far away or where I can bring useful knowledge.

This is another way I contribute to the WPCommunity and in a wider sense to the OpenSource movement.

But it’s not easy, it’s taxing, and tiring, and expensive.

I’m also (not positively) surprised that @yoast has remained alone in this effort and I exhort other companies that thrive in the WordPress ecosystem to include #knowledge as a sponsor swag in upcoming events by supporting self-sustaining speakers in sharing their knowledge

With all this said, I will continue to reach as far as I can with my own means, but if some businesses out there believe there is value in supporting me in this endeavor, I will happily represent them wherever I go.

Triste ma inevitabile, temo.

Temo che questo possa essere solo l’inizio del cedimento (fisiologico) di infrastrutture progettate in altri tempi e altri contesti.

E il collasso progressivo di una nazione, di un popolo, di una cultura che è stata centro vitale di intelligenza solo qualche secolo fa.

Strutture giganti, costruite con materiali di cui possiamo “supporre” le reazioni ma che solo il tempo può dire. E spesso in contesti di abuso e speculazione, per cui nn siamo nemmeno sicuri che le cose siano state fatte come inizialmente progettate…

Purtroppo siamo abituati al benessere, pretendiamo che tutto fili liscio e siamo così arroganti che quando il mondo ci offre esempi di “minor benessere”, di problemi, di guerre, di crisi finanziarie di intere nazioni siamo così stupidi e ottusi da pensare che il problema sono “gli altri”, che sono più stupidi e incapaci di noi.

E in loro vediamo il riflesso solo della nostra parte peggiore, proiettando su di loro i nostri mostri.

No, chi lo dice che scappano dalla guerra? Hanno fame? Aiutiamoli a casa loro.

Che stiano a casa loro che qui abbiamo già troppo poco di tutto e questi vengono a portarcelo via.

Mi stupisce sempre la miopia: le cose sono lì, da vedere, oggi giriamo il mondo con i low-cost e la miseria la possiamo vedere e toccare con mano.

Ma gli altri non sono in difficoltà, loro sono dei coglioni, pigri e incapaci, alla ricerca di pappa pronta (!)

Non sono come noi, che siamo solo povere vittime: di governi, di complotti universali, di “altri” che ci dicono proprio quello che vogliamo sentirci dire e ce lo facciamo bastare.

Nn ci piace guardare la realtà: implicherebbe assumersi le proprie responsabilità. E dio nn voglia.

Quindi alé, a caccia di colpevoli da fustigare in piazza.

O meglio, a caccia di nulla, ché tanto basta l’intenzione, il “eh, ma io pensavo/volevo/credevo ma… sai, é DIFFICILE”.

Ecco, ne ho veramente piene le palle di sentire lamenti sulla difficoltà delle cose.

La vita È difficile, bella gente.

E un bel cazzo di niente vi è dovuto.

E, ah, sappiatelo bene: il conto arriva sempre. E più tardi arriva più è salato

Il mio primo talk ad un WordCamp non poteva che essere a Roma

Tra le mille cose degli ultimi mesi di questo faticoso ma eccitante e meraviglioso 2017 c’è anche il mio (primo) talk al (primo) WordCamp Roma.

E non potevo mica perdermela questa occasione, no? Roma, che adoro, persone che adoro. E poi era proprio arrivato il momento di fare il salto. Non salivo su un “palco” da anni (non considero le lezioni o i workshop alla stessa stregua) e non era sicura di avere qualcosa di interessante da dire.

E invece pare di sì. E quindi, anche grazie al fantastico feedback ricevuto, sto preparando nuovi interventi e sto anche mettendo in pratica un po’ di quei cambiamenti che spesso è più facile fare per i clienti che per noi stessi. Ma di questo vi parlerò più avanti. Per ora vi lascio il link al post su thesign.it riguardo al talk e il link alle slide. A breve sarà anche disponibile il video su WordPress.tv (ma prima di darvi il link me lo guardo io, eheheheheh).

a più poi…

Founder & Creative Director at thesign.it ■ integrated communication designer & brand builder ■ coach & consultant ■ print & digital ■ photo, video & MoMe ■ words in Eng & Ita ■ student & teacher ■ WP Polyglot ■ typography worshiper ■ IFNJ

Originally published at zetaraffix.com on December 22, 2017.

Over the past two months I’ve been working with the greatest team to organize and bring forward the third edition of the Global WordPress Translation Day, one which we hope will surpass the previous two and be surpassed by the next one, in an ongoing, evolving effort at establishing and sustaining the WordPress Polyglots, the crew that makes it possible for this platform and all its elements to be accessible and usable to everyone world-wide, especially non-English speakers, by translating it — as of today — in 169 languages.

On September 30 2017, in fact, the WordPress Polyglots Team — whose mission is to translate WordPress into as many languages as possible — will hold its signature event, the Third Global WordPress Translation Day, a 24-hour, round-the-clock, digital and physical global marathon dedicated to the localisation and internationalisation of the WordPress platform and ecosystem, a structure that powers, today, over 28% of all existing websites.

The localisation process allows for WordPress and for all WordPress-related products (themes and plugins) to be available in local languages, so to improve their accessibility and usage and to allow as many people as possible to take advantage of the free platform and services available.

In a (not completely) serendipitous coincidence, September 30 has also been declared by the United Nations “International Translation Day”, to pay homage to the great services of translators everywhere, one that allows communication and exchange.

The event will feature a series of multi-language live and streamed speeches (training sessions, tutorials, case histories, etc.) that will be screen-casted starting from Australia and the Far East and ending in the Western parts of the United States.

In that same 24-hour time frame, Polyglots worldwide will gather physically in local events, for dedicated training and translations sprints (and for some fun and socializing as well), while those unable to physically join their teams will do so remotely.

A big, fun, useful and enlightening party and a lovely mix of growing, giving, learning and teaching, to empower, and cultivate, and shine.

Here’s some stats about the first two events:

Global WordPress Translation Day 1 (April 2016)

• 448 translators worldwide

• 50 local events worldwide

• 54 locales involved

• 40350 strings translated, in

• 597 projects

Global WordPress Translation Day 2 (November 2016)

• 780 translators worldwide

• 67 local events worldwide

• 133 locales involved

• 60426 strings translated, in

• 590 projects

It has been a pleasure and an honour to work with the greatest team setting the event up: it has been a really intense 2-months, but I couldn’t be prouder, and I thank them all for their work!

Now I need your help in spreading this news and in reaching out to all four corners of the world to make the third #WPTranslationDay a truly amazing one, and to help celebrate (and support) the unique and fundamental role that translators have in the Community, but also in all aspects of life.

A full press release is available, along with more information and visual assets at: https://wptranslationday.org/press/ — For any additional information please don’t hesitate to contact me at press@wptranslationday.org.

Thank you ❤

Insegnare fa parte del mio DNA da… praticamente sempre. È un’attività che mi gratifica e mi riempie di gioia, almeno quanto apprendere (sì, forse avrei dovuto perseguire una carriera nell’ambito accademico, ma detesto limiti, restrizioni ed etichette e adoro il mio lavoro proprio come lo faccio!)

Il progetto The Skill Nursery — Il Vivaio delle Competenze, nasce come raccolta di una serie di attività, fatte in ambiti diversi e con modalità diverse, sotto un unico cappello e come progetto dedicato alla didattica nell’ambito delle aree in cui opera Thesign.

Dopo il lancio ufficiale a Orvieto, lo scorso Aprile, il Vivaio delle Competenze fa tappa a Bologna, con una giornata full immersion dedicata a chi “soffre” di Antipatia Digitale e vive la gestione della propria comunicazione online con “più disagio del dovuto”.

La mia visione (e la mia modalità didattica, in generale) si basano su un approccio dedicato e orizzontale, costruito — come richiedono i principi della comunicazione efficace — partendo dal target e con lo scopo preciso — e fondamentale— di “rendere consapevoli” più che di impartire lezioni verticali, piene di tecnicismi e, beh, antipatiche.

Il “digitale” è una lingua, e come con una lingua che ci è straniera, non saperla in automatico è assolutamente naturale.

In fondo abbiamo fatto anni di scuola per imparare a leggere e scrivere correttamente la nostra madrelingua… quindi aspettarsi di “dover saper parlare digitale” senza alcuna formazione (sia come autodidatti, che attraverso esperienze formative) è ingenuo e crea aspettative impossibili da raggiungere… e, di conseguenza, frustrazione e delusioni, che diventano #AntipatiaDigitale.

È osservando queste dinamiche che ho deciso di creare occasioni formative specifiche per i “non-nativi digitali”, modellate per chi “va in fastidio” quando deve aprire un browser (o magari alla menzione del termine si chiede “uh?”), per chi vuole – o deve – gestire gli aspetti social o di marketing della propria attività e lo cerca di fare, senza però avere le basi e quindi con molta fatica e perdendo opportunità (e un casino di tempo)

Nessuno – che non lo abbia studiato – si aspetterebbe di arrivare in un paese straniero e, solo perché è atterrato l’aereo, parlarne la lingua e conoscerne usi, costumi e tradizioni… Eppure ci si aspetta che sia così anche con gli strumenti e gli ambienti digitali. E ci si sente frustrati (e pure un po’ scemi) quando non si è capaci di fare qualcosa o non si capisce.

Ecco perché mi preme molto di più diffondere consapevolezza e cultura che non nozioni e termini, ed ecco perché, con una modalità semplice e un approccio empatico (e simpatico) cerco di trasferire le mie competenze e di rendere la “lingua digitale” un po’ meno antipatica ;)

Vi aspetto a Bologna (o a uno dei prossimi incontri)!

I have been a professional in the design field for over 25 years. I am a real person, I have a portfolio of real projects and I work for real clients.

So when a(nother) prospect sent me a request for a spec project (based on no brief, no technical details and no information whatsoever, at that) yesterday, I wrote them back something that today I want to share with you.

Good morning NameOfCompany :)

Thank you for interest.

I hope you will understand why I need to decline your invitation at completing this assignment as part of the application process.

While I understand the need to wade through many applicants and to “filter out” possible unqualified candidates, I don’t find this type of requests useful to anyone.

On my part, there is not enough information, not enough details and not enough material to provide a solution that is thoughtful, appropriate and correct. Working on these premises would result in a half-assed attempt that doesn’t conform with my professional approach.

On your part, getting a half-assed project based on nothing real or consistent, might be a pleasant (or maybe not) exercise in evaluating random creativity, but is likely going to prevent you from getting professional work from professionals with experience.

You can see my creativity in my portfolio, and you can easily decide wether I am in-line with your aesthetics and style simply by looking at the work I’ve produced over the years: I am more than willing to dedicate you all the time you will consider necessary to discuss with you the technical details of any of these projects.

You see, to provide valuable work, time needs to be factored in, and not a couple of hours, at that. Time that I will gladly spend on a real project if you are willing to invest on me as much as you are asking me to invest on you. So you can hire me for a one-shot project, or you can hire me and let me go if you are unhappy with my work. But I will not do spec work, for you nor for anyone else.

Because spec work is bad for everyone, and it’s a practice I am not interested in supporting.

I am at your disposal for any additional information I can provide,

All the best

raffaella isidori

Daytime. Nighttime.

Light. Dark.

Laughter. Seriousness.

Cynicism. Courage.

Sarcasm. Humor.

Folly. Rationality.

Love. Sacrifice.

Misfits. In a world of misfits.

I love superheroes. They are great fun.

I also see why we need superheroes: super heroes have super powers. They are noble, generous, good and helpful. Superheroes come to the rescue. Superheroes (somewhat like God) can take care of what we cannot, can fix problems larger than us, can deal with dangers too big for us, can, simply, get where we cannot even dream of going.

In myth (at least up to rather recently) superheroes had all the fun and no problems whatsoever, maybe some little nuisances, but nothing serious. They all could get hurt by something (haircuts, kryptonite, frail heels, etc.) ‐ probably because as much as we want for them to be more than us and have superpowers, we wouldn’t want them to be invincible.

They often have a dual identity, a “common” one, often carefully kept secret (and often one in which they assume rather innocuous personalities) and a “public” one. To further discern themselves from the rest, superheroes — when impersonating their “super‐natural persona” have iconographic aspects (generally a uniform, a mask or a particular “outfit”).

In myth, heroes (and therefore super heroes too) represent our wishes, our desire to overcome our human frailties, and yet they retain the characteristics of humanness: they are “super‐human”, not alien or different… Even when they are “super‐foes” they retain certain human qualities…

According to Wikipedia, super heroes have all, generally, a set of attributes that are considered “superhero requirements”. Typically:

• Extraordinary powers and abilities (natural, technological or somehow induced);

• A strong moral code and the will to risk their lives for a higher purpose, to do good without asking for anything back;

• A specific motivation (vengeance, sense of responsibility, formal investiture);

• A secret identity;

• A costume (the packaging);

• An archenemy;

• A frailty;

• Independent wealth and/or a job that allows a certain freedom of movement;

• A complex story that sustains the circumstances and the motivations in which he/she has come into being (the brand).

I will use these characteristics, as a “guide” in the analysis of the two movies I have chosen, as they can represent somewhat of a semiotic “dictionary”.

As we progress in our growing path as a species and in our self‐analysis, we have become more sophisticated in our expectations, more precise in our descriptions, more honest in our self‐perception, and we are more willing to challenge “embedded beliefs”.

The stories we tell, the myth we create, the image we surround ourselves with, speak of us inasmuch as they come from us, and are therefore always closely related to what we aspire to, what we are afraid of, what emotes us and what we wish to hide from ourselves.

Both stories chosen are powerful and innovative, as they provide a new slant on a set paradigm, a new vision on a set iconography, a new “tolerance” for human weaknesses and a new underlying idea (which I found in many movies in these last few months) that “sacrifice” for higher purposes is to be rewarded.

These movies distance themselves from the past in that they tell either a new story (Hancock) or a new version, cruder and more brutal — yet seemingly more realistic, of a known story (The Dark Knight).

I was stricken by the choice of “going somewhat deeper” in the psychological portrait of the characters, in projecting onto to the superhero weaknesses that are very human, and that man has somewhat of a hard time accepting in himself. By doing, so these characteristics get demystified and are rendered acceptable.

Accepting reality (and ourselves) for what it is (and what we are), using it as a starting point for self‐improvement, cutting our superheroes (as icons of our aspirations) some slack for their not being perfect, are all ways to affect and transform the myth, and ‐ through that ‐ set ourselves some other standards, maybe easier to reach, maybe just more realistic.

And so, from this perspective, attaching to mythological figures characteristics that are sometimes hard to accept in ourselves — as a collectivity ‐ aids in that acceptance, it delivers us from the “shame” of those weaknesses: even super heroes (a projection of our “wishful thinking” in regards to “super‐human attributes”), are depicted — and subjected to ‐ human frailties, human emotions and human fears, reflecting — most likely ‐ our willingness (or desire), to be more open, sincere and tolerant towards our own frailties and shortcomings…

Hancock

This is particularly evident in Hancock: the story of a “psychologically messed up” super hero. Hancock has problems with regards to the above mentioned standards of “super-hero-ness”: he sure has the powers and also the (vague) idea of “doing good”, though on the “strong moral” point the character reflects the current lack of a clear concept of it, as well as a more “accepting” attitude (Hancock drinks cheap whiskey out of a half gallon bottle, is rude, is messy, talks dirty and every time he tries to do something nice, he does it in such a sloppy way that it produces more damage than good…).

Hancock doesn’t look like a super hero (he looks more like a bum, in fact), doesn’t dress like a super hero, doesn’t hold a secret identity (in fact he suffers from amnesia and can’t remember anything about himself nor his past) doesn’t have a motivation nor a scope.

He seems (he is) “accidental to himself”, a misfit, a man without a past, a future, a purpose. His being a superhero does not help, in fact: people expect more of him because he IS a superhero, and they get very mad when he doesn’t deliver.

The myth gets demystified: the super‐hero has very common traits. He’s a drunkard, he has attitude and aggressiveness problems, he’s cynical, sarcastic, depressed. But he is not the foe, the anti‐hero: he is just messed up because of his history, his background: he was abandoned and suffers from loneliness and lack of guidance and values. he doesn’t have set parameters to follow.

The myth, then, is re‐created: Hancock is a very modern super hero, if super heroes are projections of human beings’ aspirations and standards.

The movie is revealing also in terms of the mechanism of “myth–making” in our society. It is through the assistance of a PR person, through the taking on of the “superhero” image (conforming to public expectations?) that Hancock gets its recognition: when he begins to look and behave like a superhero should, he then gets recognized as a “positive” asset for the city and “begins to be loved”. Hancock “grows up” and, as an adult, he takes on responsibility for his being and his actions.

And as an adult, Hancock learns to makes “sacrificial choices” for a higher good. From being a “misfit”, lonely, upset and out of control, Hancock becomes a “proper superhero”, with his superhero outfit, superhero manners, an “adult‐like” selfcontrol and a very, very human “longing for belonging”.

From a technical/stylistic point of view, Hancock’s world is a world of light, most scenes are in daytime, camera angles are straightforward though not boring nor banal, humor pervades the entire movie, even the huge damages Hancock produces are somewhat ridiculous: all this sustains a not‐haunting, not‐frightening atmosphere, and a generally positive sensation throughout the entire movie.

Batman — The Dark Knight

Batman’s world is dark, even in the daylight: it’s a dark and sharply contrasted world. It is a tough world to be in, one that requires courage and sacrifice. Batman lives with sacrifice. He is almost the embodiment of sacrifice.

Batman perpetrates the myth of the Avenger. His quest against crime stems from his personal story (as a child, he witnessed the killing of his parents during a robbery attempt) and does not rely on “superpowers”, as he is not super‐human: his abilities are technical (martial arts) and technological, not a talent, therefore, but a cultivated asset.

Many things in this movie reiterate the myth:

• The struggle between good and evil;

• Batman is the Avenger who sacrifices himself, willing to get dirty for a higher purpose;

• Gotham is a gothic, decadent, dangerous and corrupted ground;

• The Mafia is a “screen”, a not‐so‐dangerous danger, masking the real dangers (chaos, corruption, folly, fear, lack of morals, loss of control, etc.);

• Harvey Dent is the Arrogance of the Just, the Pure and the Beautiful, a pre‐destined victim of the Joker, the White Knight which terribly fails;

• Two‐Face is the duality and the potential “lunatic” in all of us;

• The doubled‐faced coin that Dent uses is a metaphor for the inevitability of fate: even if we cheat we cannot escape our destiny;

• The Joker is a disturbing psychopath, a self described “agent of chaos”, who’s aim seems to be that of proving that man’s nature is evil, and that any man, even the best, can “go bad” and do evil if brought to it (which proves, unfortunately, correct in the case of Dent/Arrogance). He does not succeed, though, when confronted with Humanity at large (Joker puts bombs on two ferries, one carrying jail prisoners, the other civilians. He then delivers to each boat the detonator for the other, giving the passengers the option of choosing to set off the other boat or risk the explosion of both: after much discussion, no one, on neither boats, is willing to kill the other. Sacrifice, again.)

Everything in Gotham is dark and dangerous: crime is a constant enemy, one that is ruthless and pitiless (though, interestingly enough, it seems quite like the parody of crime, and criminals are “Mafiosi” that look and behave much like caricatures): in “The dark knight” the least disturbing issue is that of crime and criminals ‐ with the exception, of course, of The Joker.

Criminals are almost a parody of themselves and that little “comic books” iconography present throughout the movie is found in relation to them: the big mounds of banknotes which the Joker sets on fire, or the totally stereotypical looks of the criminals, beginning with Sal Maroni. Other than that, very little in the movie refers to the traditional syntax of “superhero/comics‐derived” movies or to the visual dictionary of Batman.

The initial scenes of the bank robbery brought to mind similar scenes in the drama “Point Break”, and, throughout the movie, the feel is that of an action thriller, not that of a superhero/fantasy context.

Partially due to the excellent performance by Heath Ledger, the Dark Knight’s Joker is deeply disturbing, particularly - I feel ‐ because he is stripped of his gimmicky, unrealistic, weapons and looks, and is portrayed as an extremely intelligent, manipulative and totally deviated mind. Even his face is not masked, nor is it tidy: it’s a scarred and deformed face covered with sloppily applied makeup. This makes it a “real” face, not a mask (which can be taken off, as somewhat of a uniform or a symbolic feature).

The Joker is totally nuts: a true psychopath, one that does evil for no specific reason other than to disseminate chaos — which is, in my opinion, the true unsettling notion, as we are brought to be somewhat more tolerant towards evil and crime if we are provided a justification for its existence and perpetration. Joker is similar, in its characteristics, to some of the lunatics depicted in crime serials such as Criminal Minds or any of the Law and Order spin‐offs…

Another issue in the movie is that of duality and fate, dealt in particular through the character of Gotham’s D.A. Harvey Dent, which the Joker, thanks to his manipulative abilities, manages to turn from champion of justice (the movie’s “Light Knight”) into the schizoid criminal Two Faces. Throughout the movie Dent uses a double‐headed coin to make apparently casual choices and when confronted states: “I make my own luck” (Arrogance… again).

But that is not so… it seems that the point that the Joker wants to make is that anyone (“even the best of us” will have to sadly agree Batman and Police Commissioner James Gordon) can be turned into someone evil. And at the end, it does seem that the Joker is right, and that, in fact, he wins (at least partially).

It is to avoid that, to balance things out, to set straight the “mess” produced by Arrogance, that the Dark Knight — “the one that “can take it”… “the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs now…” — will have to, again, sacrifice himself, taking on the blame for the Joker’s crimes, hiding his partial victory, and the Light Knight’s loss, as “…sometimes truth is not good enough, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded”.

Which is another interesting point… as Mr. Chomsky might argue…

#pray4peace

Ci sono quelli che sanno (generalmente umili e costantemente impegnati a imparare ciò che non hanno ancora imparato) e c’è la fuffa. Ovunque.

(e la soluzione alla scomparsa della fuffa è la cultura della competenza. null’altro)